Attack on Focus
Re: “Focus skips opportunity for outrage,” June 7 Diane Carman column
Diane Carman’s column would carry more journalistic weight if she made her point about drug policy without taking a swing at Focus on the Family in the same space.
But to answer your question, Diane, James Dobson and his organization are likely silent on the issue because they prioritize other political issues, like abortion and euthanasia, ahead of drug policy. I could understand if you disagree with their position, but you attack them simply because they failed to react as you thought they would.
Individuals and organizations prioritize political issues all the time. For example, you and Jim Spencer place a high priority on defending freedom of speech for Ward Churchill and the activists who tried to disrupt President Bush’s Denver town hall meeting. But I don’t remember either of you defending Gary Barnett after his news conference last spring or standing up for the Italian-Americans whom Churchill assaulted during their Columbus Day parade.
Matthew Davis, Aurora
Blame Amendment 23
Readers complaining about the governor and the legislature withholding money from higher education are barking up the wrong tree. It is the suckers who voted for Amendment 23 who insisted that the money given to K-12 must increase to match inflation, and then increase by another 1 percent regardless whether the state has the money.
So, the politicians had no choice but to rob everybody else, including higher education.
K.A. Skala, Denver
Second-hand smoking
Re: “Smoking bans,” The Open Forum, June 9.
Letter-writer Matt Roper has completely missed the reasons behind the smoking ban. He cites a quote by an Aurora City Council member to show that second-hand smoke is nothing more than an irritant.
He then compares it to loud motorcycles, poor grammar, and poor personal hygiene. The problem is, none of his examples have been linked to causing cancer.
The real reason behind banning smoking in restaurants and bars is because when one person smokes, those around him smoke as well.
If a person next to me chooses to smoke, I have no choice but to smoke with them.
In a restaurant or bar, I may not be able to move far enough away, and those servers or bar employees who work at that table are exposed to an even greater degree.
Councilwoman Molly Market’s statement may have shown that second-hand smoke is also an irritant, but to use that quote in order to dismiss scientific evidence is foolish.
Matthew Griego, Albuquerque, N.M.
Immigration debate
Re: “Solution to influx: time,” Ed Quillen column, June 7.
If we take any more time, as Ed Quillen suggests, to deal with our immigration catastrophe, we’ll end up with a half-billion people here by mid-century.
Most of our population growth is directly due to both legal and illegal immigration.
This isn’t just about the lack of assimilation; it’s about the numbers!
Ed McCarthy, Westminster
